Originally Posted By Lisann22 I found this article it's questioning different types of sports as we have here... <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2103903/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/210390 3/</a> This particular paragraph or two caught my eye; <<<Can math really be a sport? That depends how you define "sport," something the IOC has carefully declined to do. It's not easy—try it yourself. Must a sport require physical exertion? If so, does target shooting count? And if you do count it—presumably because non-exertive physical skills like accuracy are athletic, too—then aren't you bound to include billiards, darts, and Skee-Ball? By what means do you distinguish between elemental physical trials like weightlifting and the marathon, and elemental physical trials like standing on one foot, or urinating for distance, or holding your breath as long as you can? (Bonus trivia question: Which of the latter three actually is recognized as a sport by the IOC? Scroll to the end for the answer.) The philosopher Bernard Suits defines a sport as a game that meets the following four criteria: "(1) that the game be a game of skill; (2) that the skill be physical; (3) that the game have a wide following; and (4) that the following achieve a certain level of stability.">>> I think I like that definition best.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Competitive sexual intercourse. Would that be an athletic event?>> How the heck would you score it? You could certainly tell who was the fastest, but that is certainly not how you would determine the best. Although if it IS the fastest... put me in coach, I'm ready to play, today... ;-)
Originally Posted By Mr X I just realized why dancing isn't a sport (or cheerleading, or even MAYBE figure skating). Because by the above definition, none of these are GAMES to begin with. So, you didn't reveal the big answer. Is urinating for distance an official game, or what?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost But seriously folks...my minuscule opinion would be the following: Any activity that requires physical and/or mental stress, has winners and losers, has people, unable to actually do it, frantically watch and know that they could do better and in the long run doesn't amount to anything except an ego message for one or more people, this could be considered a sport. If the world has not improved one iota by the outcome and no hungry child has been nourished, no abused woman (or man) is helped out, no homeless person has been fed and no needless war has been stopped it could be considered a sport. For clarification, I know that many "sporting" events contribute large sums of money to charities but this would happen regardless of the winner, the outcome does not alter this. If multitudes of elite looking announcers are paid huge amounts of money to describe, in detail, what you just saw happen and if the word "play" is ever used in describing what is happening then it could, and probably should, be considered a sport.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<I just realized why dancing isn't a sport (or cheerleading, or even MAYBE figure skating). Because by the above definition, none of these are GAMES to begin with.>> But a lot of things that are considered sports aren't games to begin with.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I wasn't looking to reveal the big answer but that satisfied me. And yep I agree trekkeruss but they do have big followings and they are stable in that they have lasted years and years or become extremely popular quickly.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>But a lot of things that are considered sports aren't games to begin with.<<< Like?
Originally Posted By Mr X I play pac-man a lot. That's a game that requires skill and concentration. Some people make a living playing it. Am I an athlete because of that?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Like every sport that started out as solo endeavours. Cycling, skiing, kayaking, snowboarding, and so on. These weren't games to begin with, yet most if not all people consider them sports.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I think he'd be called a sportman like other non-athletic sports; a hunter, a fisherman, an equestrian, bodybuilding, poker players, a curler, archery, etc.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So far noone has explained to me why ballet dancers are any different from carpenters as far as terming them "athletes" and what they do as "sports"?> I said what they do is not a sport, but they are athletes. Professional dancers have to be in far greater physical condition than carpenters. They typically train and rehearse for a full workday, working only on (and with) their bodies. Their regimen is usually far more thorough than the typical football or baseball player, let alone the typical carpenter. A carpenter (or any manual laborer for that matter) uses his body in order to achieve an objective that has nothing to do with his body - building a cabinet, picking a crop, etc. For an athlete - dancer, runner, basketball player, whathaveyou - the objective IS what he can do with his body. That's the difference.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>Professional dancers have to be in far greater physical condition than carpenters.<< Once again, if you focus only on the physical aspect, then carpenters need to be in (generally) better physical condition than race car drivers or archists (is that a word? archery shooters?) OR golfers. >>For an athlete - dancer, runner, basketball player, whathaveyou - the objective IS what he can do with his body. That's the difference.<< That is a good point...however I still can't fathom in my mind the fact that a dancer equates to an athlete. I just don't see it. They are different things entirely.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<I still can't fathom in my mind the fact that a dancer equates to an athlete. I just don't see it. They are different things entirely.>> Do you think gymnasts are athletes? If so, how much difference do you see in what they do, and a dancer does? (apperatus aside)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<<So far noone has explained to me why ballet dancers are any different from carpenters as far as terming them "athletes">>> >>Professional dancers have to be in far greater physical condition than carpenters.<< <Once again, if you focus only on the physical aspect, then carpenters need to be in (generally) better physical condition than race car drivers or archists (is that a word? archery shooters?) OR golfers.> But you asked specifically about the difference between a carpenter and a dancer, so that's what I explained. >>For an athlete - dancer, runner, basketball player, whathaveyou - the objective IS what he can do with his body. That's the difference.<< <That is a good point...however I still can't fathom in my mind the fact that a dancer equates to an athlete. I just don't see it. They are different things entirely.> They really aren't. Perhaps you think an athlete must be engaged in a sport? But sports and athletics ARE two different things. Once you understand that, you can see what someone not engaged in a sport can nonetheless be an athlete. A runner who runs 15-20 miles a day not to compete with anyone but just to keep himself in shape is not a sportsman, but he is an athlete.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 Agree and it's vice versa too Dabob2. You can engage in a sport and not be an athlete.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 As many of us no doubt attest to every time we play in a softball game, pickup basketball, etc. etc.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut there is a difference between an athlete and and a sport. We are bluring the lines.
Originally Posted By jonvn I mentioned this before, but competitive eating. Sport? They call it that...
Originally Posted By trekkeruss ^^I think that it a bit of tongue-in-cheek (or is that hotdog-in-mouth?) hyperbole on the part of the promoters of competitive eating.
